Posted on 03/21/2005 12:23:45 AM PST by ambrose
Life support battle winds down, patient transferred to San Antonio hospital
06:37 PM CST on Sunday, March 20, 2005
By Amy Tortolani / 11 News
A man who had been on a respirator at St. Luke's Hospital arrived at a new facility Sunday in San Antonio. While the life support battle appears to be winding down, this situation could eventually involve lawmakers.
Watching the ambulance pull away from St. Luke's Hospital with Spiro Nikolouzos in it was not only a victory for his family, but another chance at life.
"I am so happy that this happened that he is out of here," said Janette Nikolouzos, patient's wife.
Spiro Nikolouzos has been an invalid since 2001 and complications last month left him unable to breathe on his own.
St. Luke' Hospital had planned to take the 68-year-old man off life support.
"This has never been an issue about St. Luke's or anyone that works at St. Luke's wanting to take this man off life support," said Dr. David Pate, St. Luke's. "It's been about what's best for him and should we be forced to continue providing care to someone that we think is futile and we think may be hurting them and ultimately, will make no impact on the quality of life."
Mrs. Nikolouzos fought to keep her husband alive and took St. Luke's to court.
After many extensions and stays, but before a final decision was ever reached, the family found a facility in San Antonio to care for their loved one.
"Free at last free at last. You didn't get to kill him," said Janette Nikolouzos.
But it's not the end of this life support case. Mrs. Nikolouzos is ready to take on Texas lawmakers who have given hospitals the right to remove patients from life support after giving 10 days notice, unless there is clear evidence another facility can provide care.
"They are out of control to make a law like this, it's shameful," said Janette Nikolouzos. "The way I feel for them giving so much power to the doctors and the hospitals they should bury their heads in the sand like an ostrich. It's disgraceful for this state.
Family members said while they won this battle, they admit the father and husband they knew will never fully recover. But at least now, they say, there's a chance.
There is supposed to be another court hearing on Wednesday, but the family's attorney said there is a conference call scheduled with the judge Monday.
Again, this decision should be up to family memebers, not the hospital staff.
Technology is getting to the point where anyone with any condition can be kept alive unaturally by plugging them into a machine.
Lets say 20 years from now some guy is decapitated in an auto accident, but the rest of his body can be kept alive through life support. Should taxpayers be forced to foot the bill if the family wants to keep a headless body alive? The line has to be drawn somewhere or else we will have to start building hundreds of hospitals and raise taxes to 100% to satisfy people who won't let go.
Some posters on the Schiavo threads apparently are. Not all, not most, but a not insignificant fraction of them. A few of them have even called for ending the concept of the living will. A lot of nanny staters on FR when it's an an issue where the gubmint can be useful to them.
DO NO HARM. DO LESS HARM. [K. J. Lopez]
During the debate tonight, Democrats in the House have said that the president is inconsistent on Terri Schiavo because when he was governor of Texas he signed a bill that was recently used in a terrible case in Texas to deny lifesaving treatment to a baby against the child’s family’s wishes.
But according to a source familiar with what went down in Texas, the then-governor signed into law something better than what Texas hospitals were already doing. There were not enough votes in the Texas legislature to require life-saving treatment to patients, which is what the governor would have preferred…
Qwinn
Because that's what doctors do; treat patients.
However, I do see your point: many doctors refuse to perform abortions, prefrontal lobotomies, "female" circumcisions, etc.
Can the hyperbole, Petronski. You'll need it later for the Supreme Court when this "bill" that was passed tonight gets overturned.
Spare me your hopes and dreams, "Deacon."
Good point.
There has to be a line somewhere. The doctors would have been better off NOT putting this man on a ventilator in the first place.
There are already people that are having their heads chopped off at death and frozen, in some hope that the technology will be there to revive them 100 years from now. Will this soon become some sort of mandatory Medicare benefit?
Exactly... that 'ol slippery slope. Leftists would love to establish the precedent of forcing doctors to keep vegetables alive, because that same precedent would be used by them to force doctors to perform abortions.
If you think health care's expensive now, wait until hospitals start propping up Aunt Gertie in the corner for fear of being taken to federal court.
Reality, pal. Is Tom DeLay going to go to the mat for Spiro here? Why wouldn't he?
They don't care about the costs (someone else's problem), and they don't care about the bad precedent. They only know what they want, RIGHT NOW.
"And don't be surprised if the precedent set tonight doesn't get invoked to require federal judges to look at each and every terminally ill case in the United States."
Uh, I take it you didn't even read the bill then, if you're going to make a claim like this:
]36 SEC. 5. NO CHANGE OF SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS.
37 Nothing in this Act shall be construed to create substantive rights not
38 otherwise secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States or of the
39 several States.
40 SEC. 6. NO EFFECT ON ASSISTING SUICIDE.
41 Nothing in this Act shall be construed to confer additional jurisdiction on
42 any court to consider any claim related--
43 (1) to assisting suicide, or
44 (2) a State law regarding assisting suicide.
45 SEC. 7. NO PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE LEGISLATION.
46 Nothing in this Act shall constitute a precedent with respect to future
47 legislation, including the provision of private relief bills.
48 SEC. 8. NO AFFECT ON THE PATIENT SELF-DETERMINATION
49 ACT OF 1990.
50 Nothing in this Act shall affect the rights of any person under the Patient
51 Self-Determination Act of 1990.
Hello slippery slope.
"If you think health care's expensive now, wait until hospitals start propping up Aunt Gertie in the corner for fear of being taken to federal court."
"Reality, pal. Is Tom DeLay going to go to the mat for Spiro here? Why wouldn't he?"
Reality?????
But there are people on other threads at this very site talking about this law only being "the first step." This is not the end of the controversy, it's just the beginning.
It appears that the authors of the bill were so concerned they wrote meaningless language in the bill, as if that ever stopped a federal judge.
I read that.
Who needs cryogenics when you can just keep the respirators running?
how is it that people who claim to believe in God and an afterlife behave as if this flesh and bones existence on Earth is all that there is?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.